Electoral Reform Committee on July 6th, 2016

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

An answer one time would be helpful.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

—and my opinion, as well as the government's approach. I will continue to remind him that it's not as simple as yes or no. If it was, we wouldn't need the support of the committee to hear from Canadians and to come to us with thoughtful recommendations. This is something that we've asked you to help us refine. I'm looking forward to the work that needs to be done and the recommendations that you put forward.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

What I'm asking though, Minister, is, I appreciate the committee's going to do its work, but what I'm asking you is, if this committee does its work, and is recommending holding a referendum, will you then commit to doing so, yes or no? It is a yes or no question, and I expect a yes or no answer, please.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm tempted to call you Mr. Speaker, as I feel like we are back in question period.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

This is not a simple question. This is not a simple process. This is not something that my opinion alone or any individual's opinion alone can inform. To answer this question thoughtfully, to answer this question in a way that reflects the voices of Canadians across this country, not just my province, not just your province, but coast to coast to coast, requires a thoughtful and deliberate outreach effort that all of us are charged with. It requires getting creative. It requires using the technologies available to us in 2016 to ensure a wholesome and inclusive conversation that even those Canadians who don't traditionally engage in the electoral process can be a part of.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

That is much more complex than the member opposite is proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think it's pretty clear why the minister is so opposed to referendums. She just simply can't answer a yes or no question.

I think, Mr. Chair, what I'd like to do instead is to move back to the line of questioning that Mr. Reid had been pursuing before he ran out of time.

I think it's clear that the minister has a personal aversion to referendums, and that's fine. But we have to ensure that this process is about what all Canadians have to say. If Canadians are demanding a referendum, they should have the opportunity to have one.

To ensure that a referendum can even be an option at the end of this process, there must be steps taken now to ensure that any necessary legislation or processes are put in place to enable that. What I'd like to ask the minister is whether you and your department are taking the steps required to ensure that proper enabling legislation is in place or updated now so that a referendum can be held on your final proposal to change the voting system. This must be done now, not after the process, so are there steps being taken? Are you doing anything now to ensure that there is proper legislation in place to enable that at the end of the process?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's really important that this conversation be done not just by hearing from experts and academics, the usual suspects, but from everyday Canadians as well. Tomorrow you'll be hearing from chief electoral officers, past and present.

As we learned from previous practices—for example, when the former government enacted legislation that affected the work of Elections Canada—we cannot do this work without making sure that we take into account the capacity and the limits that Elections Canada will face in implementing the changes we put forward. Unlike the former government, we are continuing conversations with them. The Chief Electoral Officer has reassured the procedure and House affairs committee, I believe, as well as me that there is enough time for these options on the table to be enacted, including any legislation that needs to change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Let me just ask the minister this. One of her colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote the following in 2012: “Precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada: changing the voting system would require popular support.” Also in 2012, there was a Liberal Party of Canada policy process on democracy and good governance. The summary document about electoral reform indicated that “it is also suggested that electoral reform should follow a referendum.”

So it's pretty clear that in the past, Liberal colleagues of hers, including party members in a policy process engagement, were very clear that a referendum would need to be held, and there would need to be work done, obviously, to ensure the referendum could be held.

I will ask the minister again, and I'll give her one more chance to answer the question. She keeps talking about the question being answered over and over. Well, yes it is, but we're not hearing the answer to the question. Hopefully this time we'll hear the answer.

If this process is completed, if Canadians have demanded a referendum...and I certainly would say that the polling is indicating that this is the case. But let's say the process is completed and the recommendation is made that a referendum must be held. Will you commit that you would then hold a referendum, yes or no?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 20 seconds, Minister.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

There is a diverse range of opinions, including from MPs like the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who has in the past said that his preference would be for the alternative ballot. I'm open to all opinions. Your job as a committee is to reach out to all Canadians and come to us with a report, with that final question: what is the best way to determine whether or not the recommended reform has the broad support of Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to Mr. McGuinty.

You have six and a half minutes, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome.

Minister, Eid Mubarak to you and your family. I had the privilege this morning of attending two of the five mosques in my riding and meeting with 3,000 of my closest friends. It was a wonderful day.

Minister, I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness and your sincerity on this file in the face of so much cynicism and adversity. It's not easy bringing change to an existing order, and that's what we're trying to do as a government. I've felt for 12 years, since first being elected, that our responsibility here, and this committee's responsibility, is to try to enhance trust and drive up the credibility of both our democratic processes and our institutions.

I think that's in large part what this good-faith effort is trying to do at a time when, as you rightly pointed out, Minister, there are different demographics in the country with different voting propensities. For example, you said that younger voters vote less than older voters, newer Canadians vote less frequently than more established Canadians, and so on and so forth. So I want to thank you for your patience on this. As you rightly pointed out, to quote you back, this is “not easy work”, it's “very challenging work”.

I have a pointed question for you that I want to ask in terms of part of the mandate you have given to this committee. That is this question of mandatory and online voting. Can you give us a sense of why you're asking the committee to examine those two options, this notion of mandatory voting, which I believe is the case in Australia, and online voting, which may be the case in other countries?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you very much—and well done with not one visit but two to celebrate this important day.

Mandatory voting has benefits. It has been known to increase voter participation. There are merits to that side of the argument. On the other hand, there are those who feel that implementing mandatory voting may not address the core issue of voter apathy. Furthermore, how do we enforce mandatory voting? It's important for this committee to deliberate on both sides of the argument and to make a recommendation based on what you hear from Canadians.

As far as online voting goes, in the same spirit, for some Canadians online voting means greater accessibility. For some Canadians online voting may just be the preferred way of voting. Whether or not we go about online voting, it will be really important to make sure that the integrity and security of the process are intact.

It's important for us to consider these options.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, I couldn't help but notice that my three Conservative colleagues, one after the other, simply couldn't take yes for an answer. So thank you for clarifying your position on this question of a referendum—not ruling it in and not ruling it out—in fairness, and without prejudging the outcome of this work. But I want to go back to something Ms. May alluded to earlier, which is the propensity to create enormous conflict around this question in the media coverage. It's about characters in conflict, it's a great play, but it doesn't necessarily help Canadians understand why we're trying to make these changes.

Can you speak to this question again, going back to some of your good remarks? Leaving aside the process questions that Ms. May alluded to, why are you so passionate about this?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

You were right in your observation that I don't share the cynicism that may exist out there around this particular issue. I don't share that cynicism, because I, and all of you in this room, are a reminder of what is possible in this country. Through the various parties that have come before us over 149 years, we've seen great work happen in this place, and I'm humbled to be a part of this.

I understand that this is an enormous challenge, and have understood it more and more every day. But I also know that it's an enormous privilege for any one of us in this world of ours to have a say on how we are governed. We have the opportunity to put our name on the ballot, yes, but to have a say on how we are governed is a privilege that many around the world do not have. Here we are, a handful of parliamentarians, tasked with this grave privilege and responsibility to reach out to Canadians.

I know the appetite is there for this conversation. I know we have the tools available to us in 2016 to do this in a responsible and inclusive way. I know it's possible for all of us around this table, or rather all of you around this table, to come to a place of compromise. If we were able to change the very makeup of this committee tasked with this very important work, to break from tradition, then surely it is possible, despite what may have happened over the past 10 years, for this group of elected parliamentarians to come to a thoughtful conclusion. I'm really looking forward to doing something that very few Canadians will ever get to do, which is to connect with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to look them in the eye and to hear from them what values and needs and aspirations they have for their democratic institutions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to interrupt my friend, Mr. McGuinty, but I have a question about process that I would like to ask the minister.

Minister, part of the mandate of the committee here—